The whole purpose of buying Motorola was not that they
wanted to get into the hardware market, they were trying to
protect Android from patent lawsuits from third parties and
ironically enough from Motorola suing other Android
Citation? Google said they wanted to use Motorola to
explore and demonstrate how to tightly integrate the
Android OS with hardware. It was to be Android done right,
just like their Chromebook was to be ChromeOS done right.
Saying that Motorola has nothing to do with Android is like
saying that you shouldn't include the cost of a $20,000 security
system to protect a $10,000 investment.
It is still not fair to charge all of Motorola's expenses to
Android. A lot of it is the cost of a software company entering
a hardware market. It is EXTREMELY unfair to at the same time
ignore all the ad revenue generated by Android in order to reach
your ridiculous conclusion that Android is running at a loss.
The only way you can say they are operating at a loss is to
ignore the ad income generated by Android devices and only count
the cost of the security system they bought. In addition, as I
implied before, it is hard to put a dollar figure on the savings
from not having to go to court.
Even if *you* think Android is a flaming failure, most of its big
competitors do not. They're running scared. They see Android's
stellar success as a fundamental threat to their proprietary OS
business models and are attacking Android with whatever means
they have available, fair or foul. Now that Android has
solidified its lead, it makes absolutely no sense to cripple it
by adopting the strategies of those who lost.
The sole purpose of Android was to increase service
their are millions of Android devices that don't use any Google
services especially in countries like China and India. Even in
the US, Amazon has a successful Android ecosystem that doesn't
Citation? You seem to keep making stuff up to suit your whims.
What Google said was they wanted a slice of the smartphone market
that was not beholden to other players. They explicitly were
not looking to lock Android devices to Google services.
They wanted a portion of the market that was a level playing
field. The Kindle and other non-locked-in Android devices are
still a big win for Google. The world would be a different place
if those were all Apple or Window devices.
Even worse, Microsoft can get a per device fee from many Android
devices but Google can't.
I agree this is both unfortunate and extremely unfair.
It is also sad that the once mighty Microsoft has reduced itself
to the level of a patent troll. I'm sure Android would have
been even more spectacularly successful without the Microsoft
tax. Yet despite this handicap inflicted by a bitter competitor
and the dysfunctional US patent system, Android is still the
top dog. By far.
Yes, despite all the attacks from frightened competitors, Android
sales and activations are still through the roof. The ad
revenues must be mind boogling. Remember, the plan was never to
lock Android devices to Google services. The plan was to create
an open market where Google services could compete fairly. It's
been an incredible success. The only way you can spin it into
a failure is with obvious logical fallacies such as charging all
of Motorola's hardware expenses to Android while ignoring all
the mobile ad revenue. Any project can be made to look like
a failure if you only count expenses and ignore the major profit
stream. Say ... are you from Hollywood?